Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 953

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ANJAN MONI KALITA, J.
Ratul Bora, S/o. Khargeshwar Bora – Petitioner
Versus
The Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary To The Govt. Of India, Ministry Of Home Affairs And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/2037 of 2026
Decided On : 07-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr S.M. Abdullah P, Ms F. Hussain, Md. S. Hoque, Mr. Md. Imdad.
For the Respondent: DY.S.G.I., SC, ECI,GA, Assam, Mr. A. Sarma (For Caveator).

The High Court ruled that judicial intervention under Article 226 into an ongoing election process is barred by Article 329(b) of the Constitution. Challenges regarding nomination validity or affidavit disclosures must be exclusively addressed through an election petition after the conclusion of the election process.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 329(b) - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 33, 33A, 36(2), 80, 80A, 125A - Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 - Rule 4A - Bar to judicial interference in ongoing electoral matters - Election disputes must be resolved through election petitions presented to the appropriate forum after the conclusion of the election process - Returning Officer’s summary role in nomination scrutiny does not extend to detailed evidentiary inquiries into validity of affidavit disclosures. (Paras 17, 19, 20)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the acceptance of a nomination paper for a legislative assembly constituency, alleging that the respondent candidate failed to disclose the existence and assets of a second spouse in the mandatory election affidavit (Form-26). The petitioner contended that the Returning Officer failed to consider an application for cancellation of the nomination based on this alleged material non-disclosure, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the officer to act or to invalidate the nomination.

Issues: The main issues were whether a High Court can exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction to interfere with the nomination process during an ongoing election and whether allegations of material non-disclosure in an election affidavit can be decided by a court before the election results are declared.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the Constitution imposes a strict bar on judicial interference in electoral matters once the election process has commenced. The court reasoned that any claim of irregularity, including the suppression of material facts in affidavits, must be adjudicated by a competent forum through an election petition after the completion of the election. Furthermore, it noted that a Returning Officer cannot conduct a detailed verification of allegations regarding affidavit veracity at the stage of summary scrutiny.

Ratio Decidendi: The constitutional scheme under Article 329(b) aims to prevent the obstruction or protraction of the election schedule. Consequently, litigation questioning the validity of nominations during the course of the election process is not maintainable under Article 226, as an adequate and exclusive remedy is provided through election petitions post-poll.

Result: Petition dismissed at the motion stage for not being maintainable.

Table of Content
1. factual basis for petitioner claims regarding election nomination non-disclosure. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. mandatory disclosure obligations for candidates under the representation of people act, 1951. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. jurisdictional bar under article 329(b) prohibiting judicial interference during election processes. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. non-maintainability of writ petitions regarding pre-election nomination disputes. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT :

ANJAN MONI KALITA, J.

Heard Mr. S. Hoque, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Kataki, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India, representing the respondent nos. 2 & 3; Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned Addl. Advocate General, representing the respondent no. 4 as well as Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. K. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 (the Caveator).

2. The instant writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner with the grievance that the application for cancellation of nomination papers of respondent no. 5 dated 25.03.2026, filed by the petitioner before the Returning Officer, 54 No. Morigaon Legislative Assembly Constituency, complaining about the non-disclosure of certain material facts about the second wife of respondent no. 5 in Form-26 affidavit filed by the respondent no. 5, while submitting his nomination papers before the Returning Officer for election to the Legislative Assembly, Assam, from 54 No. Morigaon LAC, has not been considered by the aforesaid Returning Officer.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 5 has submitted his nomination papers to contest the election from 54 No. Morigaon LAC and as required under the Representation of People Act, 1951 (herein after Act of 1951) and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, has sworn an affidavit in Form-26, disclosing his criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities and educational qualification etc. However, the respondent no. 5 has though disclosed various facts, did not disclose about his one spouse and her assets and properties. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 5, in spite of having two spouses, has disclosed only about one spouse, i.e., Smti Lujemai Dewri but, did not disclose about his second spouse, namely, Smti Sewali Dewri and her assets and liabilities. It is contended that during the last General Assembly Election of 2021, the respondent no. 5 had disclosed about his two aforesaid spouses in Form-26 affidavit. However, in the present election of 2026, he refrained from disclosing about his one spouse and her assets and liabilities. It is contended that having found the aforesaid non-disclosure, which is mandatory in nature, the petitioner, who is an election agent of an independent candidate, namely, Shri Animesh Medhi, has submitted an application for cancellation of the nomination papers of the respondent no. 5 dated 25.03.2026 before the Election Officer, 54 No. Morigaon LAC, pointing the aforesaid anomalies. It is also contended that the names of both the spouses were included in the final voters’ list of 54 No. Morigaon LAC, but the respondent no. 5, for reasons best known to him, did not disclose about his second spouse. It is contended that in spite of the aforesaid application for cancellation, the Election Officer has not taken any action for cancellation of the nomination papers of the respondent no. 5, which is in violation of the mandates of the Constitution of India.

4. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: -

“1. to Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction/commanding Respondent No.4 forthwith decide, by a speaking and reasoned order, the objection dated 25-03-2026 submitted by the Petitioner against the nomination of Respondent No. 5 for 54-Morigaon LAC and/or;

2. Issue an appropriate writ, order, o